The example sorcery code shown on github appears to me to create duplicate accounts if it is extended to allow for multiple sign in methods (which is the whole point of oauth). You can see in the snipit here that create_from() will be called if login_from() does not succeed.
GITHUB AT at https://github.com/NoamB/sorcery-example-app/blob/master/app/controllers/oauths_controller.rb
def callback
provider = params[:provider]
begin
if #user = login_from(provider)
redirect_to root_path, :notice => "Logged in from #{provider.titleize}!"
else
begin
#user = create_from(provider)
Investigating the source code for create_from in all cases a new User Account record will be created. This would not be correct, if a User account record already exists.
My question: What sorcery methods should be called on the first facebook connect, if a User account has been created by some means other than facebook. login_from will fail, and create_from will generate a duplicate usser record?
You can use def create_and_validate_from(provider).
It will validate if the users email/username already exist. If its true, that he will store infos into a session and can be rendered into registration form.
And if you wish to add some provider to your account you can use def add_provider_to_user(provider).
Several requests have come through for an answer to this question, so I am providing the answer that Andy Mejia part of my team eventually arrived at for this question. We used the source within sorcery to adapt the following functions:
# Returns the hash that contains the information that was passed back from Facebook.
# It only makes sense to call this method on the callback action.
#
# Example hash:
# {:user_info=>{:id=>"562515238", :name=>"Andrés Mejía-Posada", :first_name=>"Andrés", :last_name=>"Mejía-Posada", :link=>"http://www.facebook.com/andmej", :username=>"andmej", :gender=>"male", :email=>"andmej#gmail.com", :timezone=>-5, :locale=>"en_US", :verified=>true, :updated_time=>"2011-12-31T21:39:24+0000"}, :uid=>"562515238"}
def get_facebook_hash
provider = Rails.application.config.sorcery.facebook
access_token = provider.process_callback(params, session)
hash = provider.get_user_hash
hash.merge!(:access_token => access_token.token)
hash.each { |k, v| v.symbolize_keys! if v.is_a?(Hash) }
end
# Method added to the User Account model class
def update_attributes_from_facebook!(facebook_hash)
self.first_name = facebook_hash[:user_info][:first_name] if self.first_name.blank?
self.last_name = facebook_hash[:user_info][:last_name] if self.last_name.blank?
self.facebook_access_token = facebook_hash[:access_token]
self.email ||= facebook_hash[:user_info][:email]
unless facebook_authentication?
authentications.create!(:provider => "facebook", :uid => facebook_hash[:uid])
end
self.build_facebook_profile if facebook_profile.blank?
save!
self.facebook_profile.delay.fetch_from_facebook! # Get API data
end
To show these code in context, I am also including logic from our controller:
def callback
provider = params[:provider]
old_session = session.clone # The session gets reset when we login, so let's backup the data we need
begin
if #user = login_from(provider) # User had already logged in through Facebook before
restore_session(old_session) # Cleared during login
else
# If there's already an user with this email, just hook this Facebook account into it.
#user = UserAccount.with_insensitive_email(get_facebook_hash[:user_info][:email]).first
# If there's no existing user, let's create a new account from scratch.
#user ||= create_from(provider) # Be careful, validation is turned off because Sorcery is a bitch!
login_without_authentication(#user)
end
#user.update_attributes_from_facebook!(get_facebook_hash)
rescue ::OAuth2::Error => e
p e
puts e.message
puts e.backtrace
redirect_to after_login_url_for(#user), :alert => "Failed to login from #{provider.titleize}!"
return
end
redirect_to after_login_url_for(#user)
end
I hope this solution is helpful to others.
I came across the same problem. While I have not found a direct solution via Sorcery, I did the following which seems to work:
#user = create_from(params[:provider]) do |user|
User.where(:twitter_id => user.twitter_id).first.blank?
end
This teqnique requires that you have twitter_id in the User model. You can also do it the other way around with the Authentication model instead. Such as:
#user = create_from(params[:provider]) do |user|
Authentication.where(:uid => user.twitter_id).first.blank?
end
If the block returns false, then it doesn't create the user. Avoiding any duplicates.
Note, the block for create_from does not work with 0.7.12. It works with 0.7.13.
I have two roles defined in my User Model:
User.role == admin
or
User.role == basic
In my Application Controller:
include MobilizedController
In lib/mobilized_controller.rb:
module MobilizedController
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
before_filter :set_basic_request, :if => :basic_logged_in?
end
private
def set_basic_request
request.format = :basic
prepend_view_path "app/views/basic"
end
def basic_logged_in?
current_user.role == 'basic'
end
end
This is all fine when I am logged in, it sets the Mime Type correctly and renders my basic views.
Unfortunately, when I'm not logged in I get:
Undefined method 'role' for nil:NilClass
which I guess means that the current_user is not set, and thus calling nil on it won't work.
Does anyone have any suggestion for this? I need to be able to render the default log in page if a user is not logged in, and then set the Mime Type on login.
Any help?
In your example for basic_logged_in you set current_user.role to basic. It seems like you do not set a role for admin or not-logged in users.
So current_user.role is not set if you are not logged in or login as admin.
I have two urls that basically renders the same page. The minor differences can be easily executed via javascript, based on the location.href. Anyway, even when the routes point to the same controller#action, the second route is not using the page cached by the former. How can I achieve this?
I have a interesting requirement in my website opposite to you -- Different pages can be returned from a same url because of different themes. So I came up a solution called "anonymous cache", and I make my own cache key including the extra parameters. But I think this solution can give you some clues.
module AnonymousCache
def self.included(base)
base.extend(ClassMethods)
end
module ClassMethods
def caches_page_for_anonymous(*pages)
before_filter :check_cache_for_anonymous, :only => pages
after_filter :cache_for_anonymous, :only => pages
end
end
def check_cache_for_anonymous
return unless perform_caching
return if logged_in?
path = anon_cache_path
if content = Rails.cache.read(path)
send_data(content,
:type => 'text/html;charset=utf-8', :disposition => 'inline')
return false
end
end
def cache_for_anonymous
return unless perform_caching
return if logged_in?
path = anon_cache_path
#expires_in ||= 1.hour
self.class.benchmark "Cached page for guest: #{path}" do
Rails.cache.write(path, response.body, :expires_in => #expires_in.to_i)
end
end
protected :check_cache_for_anonymous
protected :cache_for_anonymous
private
def anon_cache_path()
path1 = File.join(request.host, current_theme, request.path)
q = request.query_string
path1 = "#{path1}?#{q}" unless q.empty?
path1
end
end
anon_cache_path method is where I make canonical key for the page cache. You can see I includes current_theme in it.
You can copy this and changes anon_cache_path according to your requirements.
I have code in my model (RoR 3.0.x) that is more or less like this:
class Message
after_create :notify
protected
def notify
if visible?
Notifier.message_from_portfolio( user, self ).deliver
else
Notifier.invisible_message_from_portfolio( user, self ).deliver
end
end
end
And I'm using the latest rspec gem to test it.
The problem is that I'm not able to test the notify method: if I test it directly I can't because it's protected, if I create a message and set expectations it doesn't work because apparently even though rspec runs the notify metod I'm not able to catch the calls in time.
My spec is:
describe :notification do
it "should send the whole message by email when visible" do
u = Factory.create( :user, :account_type => 1 )
message = u.messages.build( :body => "Whatever", :author => "Nobody", :email => "test#example.com" )
Notifier.should_receive( :message_from_portfolio )
message.save
end
end
The object Notifier never receives message_from_portfolio. What am I doing wrong? Suggestions?
Factory.create has already saved message, so it is not being created, just saved. Substitute it with Factory.build and all should be fine.
Are you sure the callback is being reached? after_create doesn't get executed if the instance is invalid.
You could set an expectation for debugging purposes:
message.should_receive(:after_create)
Or maybe visible? returns false? To check for that you could use a negative expectation:
Notifier.should_not_receive(:invisible_message_from_portfolio)
I have written a Rails 3.1 engine with the namespace Posts. Hence, my controllers are found in app/controllers/posts/, my models in app/models/posts, etc. I can test the models just fine. The spec for one model looks like...
module Posts
describe Post do
describe 'Associations' do
it ...
end
... and everything works fine.
However, the specs for the controllers do not work. The Rails engine is mounted at /posts, yet the controller is Posts::PostController. Thus, the tests look for the controller route to be posts/posts.
describe "GET index" do
it "assigns all posts as #posts" do
Posts::Post.stub(:all) { [mock_post] }
get :index
assigns(:posts).should eq([mock_post])
end
end
which yields...
1) Posts::PostsController GET index assigns all posts as #posts
Failure/Error: get :index
ActionController::RoutingError:
No route matches {:controller=>"posts/posts"}
# ./spec/controllers/posts/posts_controller_spec.rb:16
I've tried all sorts of tricks in the test app's routes file... :namespace, etc, to no avail.
How do I make this work? It seems like it won't, since the engine puts the controller at /posts, yet the namespacing puts the controller at /posts/posts for the purpose of testing.
I'm assuming you're testing your engine with a dummy rails app, like the one that would be generated by enginex.
Your engine should be mounted in the dummy app:
In spec/dummy/config/routes.rb:
Dummy::Application.routes.draw do
mount Posts::Engine => '/posts-prefix'
end
My second assumption is that your engine is isolated:
In lib/posts.rb:
module Posts
class Engine < Rails::Engine
isolate_namespace Posts
end
end
I don't know if these two assumptions are really required, but that is how my own engine is structured.
The workaround is quite simple, instead of this
get :show, :id => 1
use this
get :show, {:id => 1, :use_route => :posts}
The :posts symbol should be the name of your engine and NOT the path where it is mounted.
This works because the get method parameters are passed straight to ActionDispatch::Routing::RouteSet::Generator#initialize (defined here), which in turn uses #named_route to get the correct route from Rack::Mount::RouteSet#generate (see here and here).
Plunging into the rails internals is fun, but quite time consuming, I would not do this every day ;-) .
HTH
I worked around this issue by overriding the get, post, put, and delete methods that are provided, making it so they always pass use_route as a parameter.
I used Benoit's answer as a basis for this. Thanks buddy!
module ControllerHacks
def get(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "GET")
end
# Executes a request simulating POST HTTP method and set/volley the response
def post(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "POST")
end
# Executes a request simulating PUT HTTP method and set/volley the response
def put(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "PUT")
end
# Executes a request simulating DELETE HTTP method and set/volley the response
def delete(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "DELETE")
end
private
def process_action(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil, method = "GET")
parameters ||= {}
process(action, parameters.merge!(:use_route => :my_engine), session, flash, method)
end
end
RSpec.configure do |c|
c.include ControllerHacks, :type => :controller
end
Use the rspec-rails routes directive:
describe MyEngine::WidgetsController do
routes { MyEngine::Engine.routes }
# Specs can use the engine's routes & named URL helpers
# without any other special code.
end
– RSpec Rails 2.14 official docs.
Based on this answer I chose the following solution:
#spec/spec_helper.rb
RSpec.configure do |config|
# other code
config.before(:each) { #routes = UserManager::Engine.routes }
end
The additional benefit is, that you don't need to have the before(:each) block in every controller-spec.
Solution for a problem when you don't have or cannot use isolate_namespace:
module Posts
class Engine < Rails::Engine
end
end
In controller specs, to fix routes:
get :show, {:id => 1, :use_route => :posts_engine}
Rails adds _engine to your app routes if you don't use isolate_namespace.
I'm developing a gem for my company that provides an API for the applications we're running. We're using Rails 3.0.9 still, with latest Rspec-Rails (2.10.1). I was having a similar issue where I had defined routes like so in my Rails engine gem.
match '/companyname/api_name' => 'CompanyName/ApiName/ControllerName#apimethod'
I was getting an error like
ActionController::RoutingError:
No route matches {:controller=>"company_name/api_name/controller_name", :action=>"apimethod"}
It turns out I just needed to redefine my route in underscore case so that RSpec could match it.
match '/companyname/api_name' => 'company_name/api_name/controller_name#apimethod'
I guess Rspec controller tests use a reverse lookup based on underscore case, whereas Rails will setup and interpret the route if you define it in camelcase or underscore case.
It was already mentioned about adding routes { MyEngine::Engine.routes }, although it's possible to specify this for all controller tests:
# spec/support/test_helpers/controller_routes.rb
module TestHelpers
module ControllerRoutes
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
routes { MyEngine::Engine.routes }
end
end
end
and use in rails_helper.rb:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.include TestHelpers::ControllerRoutes, type: :controller
end